EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: Our top story is the media shakeup and the Government has told MPs they have eight days to decide whether to support the new raft of media reforms, a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is adamant that if he can't generate a consensus for the legislation by the end of next week, he'll abandon the plans all together.

Senator Conroy joined me a short time ago from our Parliament House studio.

Stephen Conroy, thanks for being there.

STEPHEN CONROY, COMMUNICATIONS MINISTER: Good to be with you.

EMMA ALBERICI: Why do we need more media regulation?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well, in 2007 the Howard government watered down the cross media laws and we've been campaigning for a - since that day, I was the shadow minister, and we said, "We don't support this watering down. We believe that we should introduce a public interest test and we should strengthen the laws that had then been watered down and continue to be."

There is enormous economic pressure currently in the media sector and that economic pressure is coming to bear in ways that could lead to a much-reduced number of voices that Australians can hear.

Now, the number of voices, the diversity of opinion is a vital lifeblood of any democracy. So we cannot afford for there to be a further concentration of media ownership in this country. It's already one of the narrowest in the world. We cannot afford a further concentration.

EMMA ALBERICI: On that very issue of diversity, digital technology has delivered, hasn't it, more voices on any particular issue than anyone could possibly read, watch or listen to on any particular day.

STEPHEN CONROY: Well, as you know, I'm a huge supporter in trying to bring the National Broadband Network, which will allow all of those digital voices to come into people's homes, but we're not yet at the stage where Crikey, probably the most well-known blog/subscription model, actually only has about 15,000 customers.

So, yes, there are many, many blogs out there, many opinions out there, but we're not yet at the stage where we can say that a further concentration in media ownership in Australia would be a healthy thing for our democracy. So what this legislation would do is ensure that we don't have an unnecessary coming together.

We have a public interest advocate, a newly-created statutory position, independent of the Government, would assess whether or not a number of mergers could take place. So, no longer would the Government be actually making the decision. We've actually put it in the hands of a public interest advocate.

EMMA ALBERICI: And we'll talk about that advocate in a minute, but I just wanted to talk about the status quo because I'm curious to know whether you think there is actually a public clamour for these reforms because on the face of it the media is quite sufficiently regulated through the ACCC and laws surrounding foreign ownership.

STEPHEN CONROY: Reject that completely. The competition laws do not address the diversity of opinion and the number of voices in the same way as a public interest test.

So, to sit back and say, "Nah, the ACCC, they'll look after it," that is not satisfactory and the Productivity Commission made this point I think nearly 10 years ago, that you cannot rely on the diversity - the competition laws to protect diversity and opinion. This is a completely different type of market and the normal competition laws are not sufficient.

So we don't accept that argument at all. This argument that there's no problem and this is looking for a - a problem looking for - an answer looking for a problem - I just reject that utterly. The changes made in 2007 were poor policy, poor public policy and we didn't support them then, we've campaigned for the last five years and we're now at the point where we'll be able to actually strengthen those laws with an advocate and a public interest test.

EMMA ALBERICI: Let's look at this public interest media advocate. They'll decide whether a media merger or acquisition is, as you say, in the national interest. What's the test? And tell us what criteria you use to define what's in the national interest.

STEPHEN CONROY: Well the sorts of criteria that would be set out are audience reach, the frequency and depth of the services, the cumulative impacts. So, it might not just be one, it might be a string of changes have occurred. And then of course there's still the one - the criteria that you would need that if the company would go out of business and you'd lose the voice completely, is that worse than blocking the merger and having a lesser number of voices? So those are the sorts of criteria. They're not radical.

EMMA ALBERICI: Who's going to write the criteria? Is the Government going to set those - set those down?

STEPHEN CONROY: Those will be set through - partially through the legislation, partially the consultation process that the public advocate will be involved in, but essentially they're the sort of criteria that I'm expecting to be used. That's the sort of things that the legislation will contain.

But let me be clear: the current laws are the result of the Howard government watering down the Paul Keating cross media laws and we've got greater economic pressure today to see greater merger activity and that is not going to be in the interests of all Australians, in the public interest or in the interests of a democracy for there to be less voices than there are today.

You can't - no-one can seriously argue that we have a diverse, massive opinion in the mainstream media. We have Fairfax under enormous pressure. We've got Channel Ten under enormous pressure. We've got Channel Nine only just come out of a huge debt mountain and we've got the blogs starting to come through. But they're not in a position to offset the losses that we potentially could see.

So the 2007 changes were very poor public policy.

EMMA ALBERICI: Now who appoints this public interest media advocate?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well the Government would obviously make an appointment just like we appoint the independent statutory head of the Productivity Commission, the independent statutory head of the ACCC, the independent statutory head of the ACMA. All of those are independent statutory authorities. Nobody suggests that I tell Chris Chapman at ACMA that I didn't like what was on Lateline last night. "You're the broadcast media regulator. You go and do something about it." These are statutory, independent positions.

We've also said with this position because it's a new position we'd be prepared to consult with the Opposition about finding a suitable person to fill this role.

EMMA ALBERICI: Now the independent MP Andrew Wilkie has raised his concerns about the public interest test for media ownership. He believes this is an area open to political interference.

STEPHEN CONROY: Well I haven't spoken with Andrew yet. I'd be interested to see why he thinks that, but I haven't seen or spoken with Andrew at this point in time. But our position is - and I'm going to be very clear about this - this package is not up for bartering and negotiation and things to be added on here or things to be added on there and deals and cross deals.

This is - everybody's known for two years this debate's coming, everyone's known what the convergence review have pushed, what the Finkelstein report recommended, all of those things have been taken in as a consideration. We're not going to be dragged around for months on this. This is a package that the Parliament fully understands and the Parliament will be in a position to make a judgment next week.

So, the Parliament can decide does it want to strengthen media laws or does it want to allow the existing situation to stand?

EMMA ALBERICI: Why the deadline of next week? Why rush it through?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well as I said, this is a bill that has been many years in the making, every political party had a debate around it.

EMMA ALBERICI: But the complexion, the actual complexion of what you were going to decide wasn't known until today, the exact measures you were going to adopt, and so why give MPs only essentially eight days to look at this?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well all of these options have been kicked around, you could read about them every single day in the newspapers. There's been an obsessive focus on it from some organisations because it could impact upon their business. So this is not something that is a surprise to anybody. The Finkelstein report has been out there, the convergence review, there's been story after story. This is not something that is new. But we're not going to sit around ...

EMMA ALBERICI: So if it's not agreed on - sorry, so if it's not agreed on by next Friday, it's over?

STEPHEN CONROY: We won't be proceeding with it. That is absolutely the position. We are not going to proceed with this, we're not going to spend months and months being dragged around, negotiating this little bit over here or that little bit over there. It's a package; take it or leave it.

EMMA ALBERICI: Now it's no secret that your government's been upset with the political commentary in the News Limited press and the chief executive Kim Williams has come out today labelling this announcement as retrograde. He's called it a sad day for democracy.

STEPHEN CONROY: What's a sad day for democracy is the continued erosion of diversity of opinion. And nobody wants to see a further concentration of opinion and ownership is a vital factor in the diversity of opinion.

So it will be a sad day for democracy if there was a further reduction in the diversity of opinion. So, News Limited have at times been quite hysterical about this. This is a package that is balanced, it achieves not having the Government take over regulating the print sector. So the Government is not funding it, it is not setting the standards and it is not judging the tests.

EMMA ALBERICI: Now let's just quickly talk about the new complaints system. You said today that you want to make it easier to complain about biased and inaccurate reporting. How will that be easier under these reforms?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well that's one of the issues that the parliamentary committee are going to be looking at. What you have at the moment - and I think my colleague Anthony Albanese recently had an experience where a news report went to air on the nightly 6 o'clock news, he put in a complaint to the ACMA. He was upheld completely. All of the points made in the program were wrong. He received a very nice letter from the TV station saying we were sorry. Was there an on-air retraction? No. Was there any explanation that the material that they had published was false? No.

So what we're looking at and the committee is looking at this particular area of complaints is whether or not there should be on-air apologies and retractions. So if you were to grossly be inaccurate and a complaint was made, should you have to read an on-air retraction or apology or correction? So that's an area where there is a debate, a legitimate debate that will take place in the part of the committee process.

EMMA ALBERICI: And that equally applies to newspapers and where they'll need to print corrections and apologies?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well, look, I think one of the good things that's happened since we announced the beginning of the convergence review and the Finkelstein report is the Australian Press Council, which 12 months ago if you were to ask me this question I would have said is just a lapdog. It was a joke, it was considered to be a joke in the industry and it wasn't taken seriously by journalists, it wasn't taken seriously by proprietors and the public didn't take it seriously as a watchdog.

Now, only because of the focus, only because of the focus of these committee reports can you now start to see retractions in the newspapers of some substantial size on pages three or maybe page five.

So, if you - I myself had an experience where someone complained about the Daily Telegraph's reporting of the National Broadband Network. And they made three complaints. All of them were upheld by the Press Council. And they were ordered to - by the Press Council, the Daily Telegraph, to correct it prior to Christmas a couple of Christmases ago, and not only didn't they comply with that, they waited until 27th December and they put it on I think about page 42 in tiny print.

Well, the Press Council has had enough of that. The people of Australia had enough of that. And now, to the credit of those involved in the Press Council, you now see a much more substantial retraction. So that process has already began to improve.

As I said, areas where we still think there needs to be some improvement is around guaranteed funding for the Press Council, and importantly, we want to see - everyone says the Government shouldn't be, the Government should not be involved in the media. Well we want to see the Press Council not run by the proprietors.

So we want some independence of the appointment of the directors so that we don't have the actual proprietors running their own watchdog. There is no governance model in the world that says having the proprietors actually running the watchdog gives you genuine independence.

So there's some areas where we believe there's still some improvements, but as I said, the debate 12 months ago is different to the debate today.

EMMA ALBERICI: And just finally very quickly, if a media organisation does not comply with the directive from the Press Council, this was always a concern, is there in any circumstance an opportunity to prosecute and send that proprietor to jail?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well as I said, those were potential recommendations that came through from the Finkelstein report. We haven't accepted those recommendations. What we've done is we will appoint an independent statutory officer, the advocate, the public interest advocate, they will judge whether the criteria that the Press Council operates on as being followed. So it has its own complaints mechanism, it has its own disciplinary processes, it creates its own activity.

So those things go to the vibrancy of a Press Council so they're not just a lapdog. So when that's approved, there is no change. The Government is not proposing any change to any existing Press Council standard - none, zero. So this heavy-handed intervention that you're reading about from Kim Williams and News Limited should be seen as just a little bit of extra theatre as this debate goes on.

EMMA ALBERICI: Stephen Conroy, thanks very much for joining us tonight.